2025:CGHC:27088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1992 of 2025 1 - Dankeshwar Netam S/o Ishwar Netam Aged About 37 Years R/o Satnam Chowk, Village- Jhonka-Latwa, Tehsil And Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Vikas Sahu S/o Shri Rajnarayan Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Nehru Chowk, P.S. City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, Tehsil- Baloda Bazar, Distt.- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Rituraj Sahu S/o Shri Rajnarayan Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Nehru Chowk, P.S. City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, Tehsil- Baloda Bazar, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Vivek Sahu S/o Shri Rajnarayan Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Nehru Chowk, P.S. City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, Tehsil- Baloda Bazar, Distt. Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Deputy Registrar Baloda Bazar, Distt.- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ---Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 5 : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Shubham Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 23/06/2025 1. The present petition has been filed for the following relief(s):- 10.1)That Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating with the instant petition. 10.2) That Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Baloda Bazar.] 10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant the petitioner the necessary permission to sell the land in question, recognizing his lawful right to do so without unwarranted obstruction or interference. 10.4 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the necessary permission to sell the land in question. 10.5 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other orders/direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Deputy Registrar, Baloda Bazar whereby the petitioner’s application seeking permission to transfer his land to a non-tribal person has been rejected. The impugned order has been passed despite the categorical direction passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition (C ) No. 924/2025 wherein the Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned Registrar for effecting the transfer. In compliance with the direction of the High Court, the petitioner submitted an application before the Deputy Registrar. However, vide order dated 18.03.2025 the deputy Registrar rejected the application of the petitioner to transfer the land to a non-tribal person, disregarding the High Court’s categorical direction. Thus, the order impugned is per se illegal, arbitrary and against the law of natural justice and he prays that the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 may be set aside and he may be permitted to sell the land in question. In support of this contention, learned counsel for petitioner placed his reliance upon a decision of this High Court in the matter of Nand Kumar Vs. Mayaram reported in 2022 LawSuit(Chh) 609. 3. Learned State Counsel draw the attention to this Court that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 72 of Indian Registration Act 1908. 4. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit property is situated at Baloda Bazar City Tehsil & District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara and within Nagar Panchayat, therefore Section 165(6) (7) of the Land Revenue Code would not applicable in the present case. The suit property is a diverted land and without permission of Collector, the Registrar is bound to register the sale-deed executed by the seller in favour of the purchaser. On the basis of report of the Collector, the Deputy Registrar has refused to register the sale-deed and dismissed the application seeking permission to transfer his land to a non-tribal person. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a contention that in identical matters, the Collector has written in the order vide Annexure P/10 that the restriction imposed on transfer under Section 165 of LRC within the scope of the restriction is applicable to agricultural lands, not to lands diverted for non-agricultural purposes and the land applied for is diverted land, therefore Section 165(6) of LRC would not be applicable to the said land. In this regard, respondent-authorities are directed to inquire the same in accordance with law. 7. The submission of the State Counsel is that since the Deputy Registrar Baloda Bazar has refused to register the sale deed and dismissed the application seeking permission to transfer his land to a non tribal person, there is alternate remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 72 of the Indian Registration Act. 8. Given the submission made by the learned State Counsel, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 72 of the Indian Registration Act within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in-turn, the concerned authorities shall decide the appeal within 30 days from the date of filing of the appeal by the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Jyoti